PROTECT IP Renamed E-PARASITES Act; Would Create The Great Firewall Of America

from the censorship-galore dept

As was unfortunately expected, the House version of PROTECT IP has been released (embedded below) and it's ridiculously bad. Despite promises from Rep. Goodlatte, there has been no serious effort to fix the problems of the Senate bill, and it's clear that absolutely no attention was paid to the significant concerns of the tech industry, legal professionals, investors and entrepreneurs. There are no two ways around this simple fact: this is an attempt to build the Great Firewall of America. The bill would require service providers to block access to certain websites, very much contrary to US official positions on censorship and internet freedom, and almost certainly in violation of the First Amendment.

Oh, and because PROTECT IP wasn't enough of a misleading and idiotic name, the House has upped the ante. The new bill is called: "the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act" or the E-PARASITE Act (though, they also say you can call it the "Stopping Online Piracy Act").

The bill is big, and has a bunch of problems. First off, it massively expands the sites that will be covered by the law. The Senate version at least tried to limit the targets of the law (but not the impact of the law) on sites that were "dedicated to infringing activities" with no other significant purposes (already ridiculously broad), the new one just targets "foreign infringing sites" and "has only limited purpose or use other than" infringement. They're also including an "inducement" claim not found elsewhere in US regulations -- and which greatly expands what is meant by inducement. The bill effectively takes what the entertainment industry wanted the Supreme Court to say in Grokster (which it did not say) and puts it into US law. In other words, any foreign site declared by the Attorney General to be "inducing" infringement, with a very broad definition of inducing, can now be censored by the US. With no adversarial hearing. Hello, Great Firewall of America.

And while defenders of this bill will insist it's only designed to target truly infringing sites, let's just recall a small list of sites and technologies the industry has insisted were all about infringement in the past: the player piano, the radio, the television, the photocopier, the phonograph, cable tv, the vcr, the mp3 player, the DVR, online video hosting sites like YouTube and more. All of these things turned out to be huge boons for the industry. And yet, with a law like this in place, the old industry gets to kill off technologies they don't understand. Scary stuff.

And it's not just foreign sites impacted by this law (despite what supporters would have you believe). It appears to expand who would have to take on the entire burdens of enforcing this blacklist -- broadly naming "service providers" as defined in the DMCA. That's significant, because a big part of this bill is to undermine and strip away the safe harbors of the DMCA. The DMCA set up an important balance that gave online service providers freedom from liability if they pulled down content upon notification. This new bill provides a massive and ridiculous burden: allowing the Attorney General to create an internet blacklist that all service providers will need to block access to:

A service provider
shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access
by its subscribers located within the
United States to the foreign infringing site
(or portion thereof) that is subject to the
order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

On top of that, the bill says any attempt to get around such blocks can lead to liability. Would this put liability on things like MAFIAAfire? It sure sounds like it:

To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief....

against any entity that knowingly
and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed
for the circumvention or bypassing of
measures described in paragraph (2) and
taken in response to a court order issued
pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such
entity from interfering with the order by
continuing to provide or offer to provide
such product or service.

While the text of the bill insists that nothing in it takes away the DMCA's safe harbors, once again this is a claim without the facts to back it up. A large part of the bill is an effective attempt to strip away the DMCA's safe harbors.

The only extraordinarily minor change against the interests of the entertainment industry is that the bill ever so slightly changes the "private right to action," which allows individual copyright holders to take action under this bill. This was a big problem in the old bill, and the only requirement here is that prior to making use of this private right to action, copyright holders have to provide "notice" to payment processors and ad providers. But then those service providers are expected to take action anyway, or face liability. So all this really does is take the court out of the process, and make it even easier for copyright holders to effectively kill off sites they don't like.

Think about this for a second: think how many bogus DMCA takedown notices are sent by copyright holders to take down content they don't like. With this new bill, should it become law, those same copyright holders will be able to cut off advertising and payment processing to such sites. Without court review.

And... because this bill wasn't already ridiculously bad enough, it also lumps in a House version of the felony streaming bill that will make huge swaths of Americans felons for streaming content online.

This bill is an abomination and an insult to the Constitution. It's unfortunate that Rep. Lamar Smith thinks this is worth introducing in its current state, and anyone who signs on to co-sponsor is effectively supporting mass censorship of the internet in the US, as well as the criminalization of huge numbers of Americans -- while putting a huge burden on the one part of the economy that actually is creating jobs. All because a few legacy companies in the entertainment industry refuse to adapt.

hilarious

Hilarious thing is that everyone's on here complaining not doing jack. I seem to remember a riot in Europe this last year because they raised the retirement age a couple years. Yet Americans are literally having their first amendment ripped from them, and they just go on the computer and say ..hey.. stop it..

Re: hilarious

um... occupy much? how do you know some of these folks are not currently exercising their first amendment rights from a smart phone at an occupy? or not making comments as the TOR the crap our of their PC in resistance. Furthering the dialogue by sharing this article and their opinion?

Re: Re:

Mr. Knight:

We thank you for your recent letter. It is always good to hear from a concerned constituent. Unfortunately you neglected to include the requisite check and/or money order needed to actually get the representative's attention. We are sure that this is a simple oversight and look forward to reading your letter once payment is made. For your convenience we now accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and Diner's Club.

Re: Re: Re:

As a non-US resident I have mixed feelings about all the antics of your elected representatives...

There is definitely a Schadenfreude element to it where I feel this is what you deserve for electing them in the first place. I'm ashamed for this but still the feelings are there. Also the US seems hell-bent on creating opportunities for other countries to become the leading economy.

The other part is fear. The US is pivotal in the worldwide economy and if the US is doing badly it will have negative influences everywhere. Besides, what will replace it as the leading economy? Probably China. Doesn't sound like an improvement...

I feel that US voters need to wake up and start voting for candidates that will reform campaign financing. This is the only way that you will ever have politicians that look after your interests (assuming such a mythological creature exists). For me, looking from a distance, this is where it all starts.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I feel that US voters need to wake up and start voting for candidates that will reform campaign financing.

Believe me, I wish I could. But, aside from a couple of outliers, there are no such candidates. And there aren't likely to be any time soon. It costs a lot to run for office, and candidates can't afford (literally) to anger the deep pockets that have bought off our system by threatening actual reform.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's so easy never to examine the merits of your own position if you enter every conversation assuming anyone that doesn't lock-step with you immediately is morally inferior, much less actually think about what they themselves are saying.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're the one spreading FUD that if more one sided IP laws aren't passed, artists will starve and will be ripped off and won't be able to make a living.

The only ones ripping others off are those who steal from the public domain through retroactive copy protection extensions. The only ones ripping others off are the MPAA/RIAA - government established broadcasting and cableco cartel complex with their Hollywood accounting. The only ones ripping people off are collection societies who sue venues for money that want to host independent performers under the pretext that someone might infringe. They rip off both artists and the public. But freely copying from someone rips no one off, since no one is entitled to having a government established monopoly. If anything, the public is the one being ripped off because they are paying for a government that passes and enforces laws that go against the public interest solely because a few corporations want them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"government established broadcasting and cableco cartel complex"

Oh god, you had me in tears at this point, I laughed so hard I almost hurt myself. Seriously, this sounds somewhere between angry 14 year old and incontinent OWS protestors. "Cartel complex"? Holy crap, that is classic!

Put down the kool aid and take a break, you can do yourself some serious harm if you keep going (and you will own me a new monitor when I spit coffee all over it laughing at your next post)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> I agree, its rude to assume that you can get a
> politicians hard work for free.

Who said anything about expecting them to work for free? They get a salary which comes from the taxes I pay. If I can't expect them to represent me for that money, plus the oath they took to do so, why are we even bothering with them in the first place? Just shut the Capitol down and send them home to work for a living.

> Of course you have to pay the politician to
> get him or her to work for you. It is only
> reasonable.

> And if you dont like the prices, dont buy.
> It is a simple as that.

So you're basically dropping all pretense and not only admitting that politicians no longer represent the people despite the oaths they took to do so, but that you not only encourage bald-faced bribery, you demand it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I buy all of my content actually. But AGAIN, you missed the point. Neither Mike or myself is voicing about how we are supposed to download copyrighted materials for free anymore. What we are fearing is our government abusing its power and expanding the scope of what is the intention of this law and using it to curtail actual freedoms. We advocate to the world how free we are, and that they should all be like us. At the same time we craft these laws which are the antithesis to what we say we stand for.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Stopping you from ripping people off."

Plus, if an artist feels that s/he is being ripped off by not having a monopoly privilege, s/he can simply find another job. No one is forcing him or her to release content. There will be many others more than willing to take his or her place.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is true that the intentions here do have merit, but we must always be very careful with the details. We could reduce crime to near zero if we just installed video cameras in everyone's homes and monitored them 24/7, a nice little police state. Oh, and of course we'd want to execute any criminal.

Breaking the law is wrong, but those who sacrifice liberty for security end up getting neither - as you've surely heard before in various incarnations ;p.

In the end, the piracy problem takes care of itself, as consumers eventually learn that it is not safe to download warez and other illegal content - not because it is breaking the law, but because of the potential for malware infestion. Also, legitimate sources of content have shown to be appealing and adopted by consumers when they offer higher quality, safe content.

Throw in increasing worldwide recognition of intellectual property laws, and eventually we'll get to decent intellectual property enforcement without having to resort to drastic measures.

How drastic is this bill? You know, I'm not going to say for sure since I haven't read it all. I'm only taking Mike's word for it. I do know it sounds a lot like other bills that reduce liberty all in one noble effort or another.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Well, when the RIAA sued Napster into the ground, why did the record stores not recover? Oh right, iTunes.

People loved the convenience of buying digital files that could be stored in a MP3 player that was smaller than a pack of cigarettes rather than lugging around a cd wallet and a toaster sized cd player.

Napster may have started the trend, but iTunes finished it.

Now can you tell me why the music industry can't compete when millions of people have shown they love spending money on iTunes?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

"Record stores started closing en masse the year after Napster arrived."

IP should not be about ensuring the profitability of 'record stores'. Besides, wasn't it about promoting artists and not just record stores and the middle men? It's not the governments job to ensure jobs. Sure, there maybe fewer record stores, but we also have fewer whip and buggies as a result of cars. That's hardly a reason t ban cars. Transportation exists regardless. Likewise, content creators have found a more efficient way of distributing their content which has enabled a wider array of content to be created (and content creation is the whole purpose of IP, not jobs).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

See, the analogy is that people are still utilizing transportation which is the same as watching movies and listening to music. Horse and buggy is cassette and CD, cars are the Internet. I'm sorry that I had to be the one to explain that to you embarrassing you in front of all of your friends and stuff.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

> People stopping using
> buggy whips. People haven't
> stopped watching movies
> or listening to recorded
> music.

But they have stopped buying them on plastic discs from retail stores.

It's ironic that you called the buggy-whip analogy moronic, yet you apparently aren't bright enough to figure out that the buggy whip in the analogy isn't the recorded music, it's the plastic discs and stores they were sold out of.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Hilarious. You open with 'people stopped buying music and movies in stores and the stores closed' and he responded with 'so what if people stopped buying music movies in stores' and your response to that response is 'people still buy stuff in stores!'

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

wow. This is pure bullshit.

My friend owned a record store in a major university town for 30 years. The year napster came out, sales started to drop. Eventually he talked to some students and they all admitted that kids weren't buying anymore because they could rip it off for free on the net.

Denying reality so far has gotten this bill you appear to dislike. Do you really want to continue to be willfully ignorant?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

It the "friend" truly owned a record store near a university...
If he had any business sense at all he would still be in business, most of the ones around here are. They adapted and changed. Some even still sell records.

Oh wait your breed is change resistant, hence the awful attitude and depressing outlook on life.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

My friend owned a record store in a major university town for 30 years. The year napster came out, sales started to drop.

Really? 'Cause I have about a half-dozen friends who owned record stores, and they all said 2001/2002 was their most lucrative years in history.

In fact, the ones that I know that were shut down, had to do so not because of file sharing, but because the rent in Boston nearly doubled in one year, and they were forced to move out to the cheaper (read: poorer and less accessible) places. And/or shut down.

One of my record-selling friends decided to quit - and his storefront was bought up, immediately, by a record store who is expanding from Providence, and who is still operating as we speak.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Correlation vs Causation

The spread of iPods, and MP3 capable phones also sounded the death knell for the big chains as it made it inconvenient to lug large CD collections around anymore. Mobile internet and ever expanding broadband coverage made downloading albums from iTunes fast and easy. Their pricing was HALF of what Tower records charged. Open your eyes and look at all of what happened.

By your logic Blockbuster and Hollywood Video must be victims of piracy as well. Netflix, and again iTunes, Redbox, and legal streaming services had nothing to do with them failing now did it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

You still end up with the same problem: Where did the content come from? Nobody is suggesting anyone "lug" around a CD collection. Since the music wasn't magically appearing on the MP3 player from nowhere, it was coming from somewhere. They stopped buying and started pirating.

When trying to make the comparison between Blockbuster and Netflix, and trying to put it next to Itunes, you miss a few key points: Even with Itunes sales, the amount of recorded music purchased has dropped significantly - yet the consumption is way up. In movies, you saw a shift in consumption from one type of legal service to another, but consumption didn't go down (in fact, with netflix, it is suggested that overall legal consumption has gone up). Itunes sales are still a drop in the bucket compared to what has been lost in the period since Napster came along. You can blame X or Y or Z, but in the end, the one common thread is piracy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

Are you high? The amount of recorded music is higher now than ever before. If you are holding your definition of recorded music to what is found on a retail CD then I guess you would be right, but like I pointed out..... Who the hell still buys a CD? Your argument makes not one damn bit of sense.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Have a way for what I want to consume available to buy immediately

" Even with Itunes sales, the amount of recorded music purchased has dropped significantly - yet the consumption is way up."

wanna know something funny? artists figured out that the myth you still believe, is in fact just that, a myth. They realized through traditional distribution systems and labels, they made about 3% per CD sold. Distribute yourself, and you can get almost all the money yourself.

Better yet, do what many in the electronic music scene, and more recently, Immortal Technique do, release the album online for free, let it spread and be shared, and see WAY more profits from tours and shows.

but you know, what people are really paying for is a hunk of plastic and some vultures to mark it up and sell it to you. not the music.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Try buying him dinner. Pick a nice restaurant that charges >$100 per meal and explain the point to him over the desert. Prepare a good pitch first. That's how the companies work, they know that people's ability to refuse are lowest when they've got a good meal inside them.

Re: Re: Re:

It has already been proven numerous times that people are willing to pay, when the price is set by the market. I, myself, purchase many games from Good Old Games (gog.com) as I consider the prices reflect their digital nature and are free from DRM.

Sony, on the other hand, still try to peddle their digital movies over the PSN for more than a physical copy! And for a lower quality "HD" rip. Where does that fit into your twister reality?

I'm all for "paying the starving artists," but I refuse to be ripped off in the process. Get back under your bridge, troll.

Re: Re: Re:

IP should not be about ensuring that people pay for something, it should be about promoting the progress, serving the public interest, and expanding the public domain. That IP maximists want to make it about anything else is more reason to abolish it.

Re:

Re:

Are you suggesting that because Windows users could add resolved names/ip numbers into their hosts file, Microsoft may face a lawsuit? Microsoft should be quite concered that you have identified their premier OS is a tool for the circumvention of this fine law.

Basically, it appears they are taking steps to stop the old "hiding offshore" defence that many sites use.

Recently, it was noted that file locker sites have started to clone themselves, registered versions of their sites with every possible TLD. One effect of this is making it harder to send copyright notifications, because you have so many URLs to report for a single infringement.

Hiding offshore may no longer mean you can continue to pander to American surfers.

Re:

Basically it also appears they are taking steps also to stop the old "this really isn't illegal where I am" or "this isn't really illegal in the us" or "my guilt hasn't been proven" defense that many sites use.

Re: Re:

What a fail!

The internet doesn't work on the basis of "where you are" - a server in France can be accessed by someone in Alaska, via a network that includes a half a dozen other countries. Where exactly did that all happen?

If you market to the US, or make your product available to the US, and your product is not legal in the US, it should be possible for the US to block access to it.

As for the "my guilt hasn't been proven", are you suggesting we should allow all criminals to remain at large to continue their activities until they are proven guilty? Do you think holding someone without bail, example, is a horrible abuse of the legal system? Do you think bail with restrictions (like those imposed on wiki dude Assange) are a violation of civil rights?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

This is a grossly inaccurate comparison. This is like saying "copyright violation is stealing".

A domain does not equal a person. Locking up a person also ensures they won't skip out on the trial, which is intended to show they are guilty, not that they are innocent. Note that this impacts just the one person, and they can post bond.

Locking down a domain prior to proving their guilt prevents all users from accessing the website, even if they are guilty. Note that this impacts all of their user base with no recourse, no way to "post bond".

Remember, physical things do not equate to virtual things. Or another way to spin it, "copying is not the same as stealing".

And as Mike often notes, I too am not advocating infringement or copyright violation. I just want to make sure we all understand that it's not the same thing.

So, to answer your question, yes. They are different. In fact, they are fundamentally different as virtual and physical are, definitionally and fundamentally, different.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

They aren't even talking about locking up a domain, they are only talking about stopping people from accessing an illegal site.

Virtual things, physical things... in the end, if they are products that are sold, they are more similar than they are different. In the same manner, the law needs to be the same in both the physical and virtual worlds. You should not be able to do online what you clearly cannot do in the "real world". If you cannot legally sell counterfeit goods in the real world (and those goods can be seized before trial), the same things should be applied online.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

"As for the 'my guilt hasn't been proven', are you suggesting we should allow all criminals to remain at large to continue their activities until they are proven guilty?"

And that's the crux of your fail - you are already assuming anyone running a site that would be blocked is guilty by labeling them criminals. Virtual/real differences aside for a moment, remember some people are released on their own recognizance... you are supporting a position that would lock up everyone, from the innocent to jay-walkers to murderers on the assumption they are guilty.

"in the end, if they are products that are sold, they are more similar than they are different"

That statement can't possibly be any more dumb. Your argument is if 2 things have something, anything, in common then they must be "more similar than they are different". A blue t-shirt and a blue sky - they must be almost the same thing since they're both blue, right? Give me a break.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

Is it not also different in that in the physical crime situation, the authority locking you up is the Police (i.e., servants of the public's best interests) while in this new virtual "lock-up" situation, the authority is some random entity that you may not be aware even exists and is most likely only looking out for their own interests?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

You obviously don't understand the proposed bill. There's no action taken against the site. Only against US based enablers from servicing the website. There's a huge difference between that and the goofy "innocent until proven guilty" or bail/bond example you've proffered.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

The major difference is that in order to lock someone up before a trial, you need to go before a neutral judge and get an arrest warrant. Then you need to have a hearing to decide if there's enough evidence to hold them for prosecution at all. THEN you need to have ANOTHER hearing to decide whether they can get bail. At all stages, there is a judge involved, clearly defined legal procedures with strict protection for constitutional rights, a requirement for actual legitimate evidence and testimony being made under oath. At the later stages, the defendant gets to talk to the judge.

Re: Re: Re:

Block access if you proved before they did something wrong in a court of law which this bill don't require, also as a bonus, it makes everyone a criminal so the US law enforcement BS can go after anyone, also it allows people to have their belongings seized by accusations alone, so if you stream video that is illegal the police can now seize your house probably.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

"As for the "my guilt hasn't been proven", are you suggesting we should allow all criminals to remain at large to continue their activities until they are proven guilty?"

Yes. Yes I'm suggesting exactly that. I mean it works for murderers so why not copyright infringes too?

"Do you think holding someone without bail, example, is a horrible abuse of the legal system? "

Holding someone without bail both requires an adversarial hearing and is very much not the norm in criminal cases.

"Do you think bail with restrictions (like those imposed on wiki dude Assange) are a violation of civil rights?"

I'm not familiar with Assange's bail restrictions.

"Answer carefully!"

It's so cute that you're willing to tacitly imply that shutting down these sites is tantamount to physical incarceration and overtly state that you're ok with shutting them down without due process. By your own logic and analogies you'd be ok with cops just showing up at your house and putting you in jail without a hearing indefinitely since that's what the terms of these site closures are.

Re: Re: Re:

If the internet doesn't work on the basis of "where you are" (and I agree it doesn't) then it seems logical to conclude that things that do work on the basis of "where you are," and legal actions are very much limited by jurisdictions even when the laws of two separate jurisdictions are in complete agreement on the legality of an act, maybe shouldn't apply at all. If the US can't show jurisdiction then it cannot legally act so this argument, like many of your other arguments, actually works against you.

Re: Re: Re:

Your first paragraph is at odds with your second paragraph. Since anyone in the world can get to your website, are you really "marketing" to Ugandans? Or perhaps your "market" is Americans, but those Ugandans can get at you, anyway?

Should you do the government of Uganda a favor and block visitors coming from a Ugandan IP address from your site? What if you want both American and Ugandan customers? Should you still learn the ins and outs of every little suburb's Internet Content Approval Board in order to block visitors from every hamlet who's burgermeister doesn't like the product you are selling?

The simple fact is that government filtering is bad. Always. To repeat: Always.

An educated user base is far preferable, and easier to effect. It also has the benefit of not violating individual rights. The only serious issue with self-regulation is that self-regulation does not provide the profit motive that enacting legislation on the behalf of lobbyists does.

Re: Re: Re:

> make your product available to the
> US, and your product is not legal in
> the US, it should be possible for
> the US to block access to it.

As repugnant as it is to the 1st Amendment, the US government isn't stopping with just blocking access to foreign sites. We've seen several cases just in the last few months where the US has pressed for extradition for *criminal charges*-- they want to arrest foreign nationals and lock them up in the US-- because they didn't obey US law while in their own country(s).

In other words, what they did was perfectly legal in their own country but Uncle Sam is trying to have them arrested and shipped back over here to serve prison time because they didn't obey US law, even though every principle of international law says they had no obligation to do so.

You people who advocate for this shit never seem to be able to answer a simple question: If every person on the planet is somehow obligated to obey US law, why aren't US citizens obligated to obey the laws of every other country as well?

Why aren't US citizens subject to arrest and deportation to Saudi Arabia for violating just about every tenet of Shari'a law?

Why aren't US citizens subject to arrest and deportation to France and Germany for violation of laws regarding the Holocaust and the display of Nazi imagery?

In short, why is the US the only country who gets to impose its laws worldwide?

I've asked this question at least a dozen times before, whenever this subject has come up, and all I ever get are crickets from you IP maximalists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> The answer is simple: sheer strength. The
> US has the economic/militarily/diplomatic
> power to attack anyone in the world.

I agree that the real answer is "Because we say so," and that's the reason the IP maximalists ignore me every time I ask the question-- it's an answer that has no basis or foundation in law and comes from a deap-seeded well of arrogance, and they'd rather avoid admitting it if they can. Hence the constant dodge.

However, the US does not have the economic or military power to attack anyone in the world.

China has suprassed us as the world's largest economy and India isn't far behind and they both basically hold the mortgage on the US. Our days of being able to run economic roughshod over the world are long gone.

As for military might, sure we could probably kick France's ass, but are we really going to go to war and start bombing Paris if they refuse to extradite one of their own citizens because he refuses to obey US copyright law-- a legal obligation he didn't even have in the first place?

Of course not. They know it, we know it, and they know we know it, so our big bad military is absolutely irrelevant in this regard.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As repugnant as it is to the 1st Amendment, the US government isn't stopping with just blocking access to foreign sites. We've seen several cases just in the last few months where the US has pressed for extradition for *criminal charges*-- they want to arrest foreign nationals and lock them up in the US-- because they didn't obey US law while in their own country(s).

In other words, what they did was perfectly legal in their own country but Uncle Sam is trying to have them arrested and shipped back over here to serve prison time because they didn't obey US law, even though every principle of international law says they had no obligation to do so.

There are a number of narcotics-producing countries where conspiracy is not a crime. Yet drug lords from these countries are routinely charged with conspiracy to import drugs into the US, conspiracy to launder money etc. And yet they've never set foot in the US. This is the same legal theory. It's tested, it's proven and it meets all Constitutional challenges. Forward your address, I'll ship you a box of hankies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> There are a number of narcotics-producing
> countries where conspiracy is not a crime.
> Yet drug lords from these countries are
> routinely charged with conspiracy to import
> drugs into the US, conspiracy to launder
> money etc. And yet they've never set foot
> in the US. This is the same legal theory.

All you've done is provide a second example of hypocritical US arrogance as justification for the first.

Cite me any globally recognized principle of international law that says every citizen on the planet has a duty to obey US law (but not the other way around).

The US Constitution is irrelevant here. All six billion people on the planet aren't obligated to obey US law merely because the US Supreme Court says the US Constitution is okay with it.

If I'm a citizen of Montenegro or Albania or the Ukraine, I don't give a flip what the US Congress says, I don't care if the US Supreme Court gives it the thumbs up, and I don't care if the US president signs off on it. I'm not a citizen of the US, I'm not physically in the US and I have no say in voting for or against any of the people who are passing these laws they supposedly claim I have to obey.

I am in no way beholden or obligated to not only follow my own country's laws but to also keep up with what some other country is doing on the other side of the world because in their height of arrogance they think I need to be following their laws, too. And the final cherry on that shit sundae is that this other country believes that when their laws conflict with the laws of my own country, that their law is *superior* to that of my own country.

> Forward your address, I'll ship you a box of hankies.

And once again, I notice that the issue of reciprocity is completely ignored in favor of general assholery on your part.

If this legal principle you're so fond of is as rock-solid as you claim, why does it only work one way? Why aren't US citizens obligated to keep up with and obey the laws of the other 190+ countries of the world? And when those laws conflict with US law, why isn't US law subordinate?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But if you take all his money he won't have any left.... if I take a copy of your latest album, which has just gone to No.1 in 9 countries and netted about £1 million you and the company still have the £1 million but I now have a copy of the album.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So you think other people should pay and you should get it for free?"

IP should not be about ensuring that people pay, it should be about promoting the progress and serving the public interest. It's not about government ensuring things are fair, that's similar to communism and it doesn't work.

"You're a parasitical freeloader.

And you are exactly why this bill exists."

If we're the minority then our purchasing power shouldn't be influential enough to make a difference in sales. If we're the majority then a representative government shouldn't pass these laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

it's all just a copy to start with anyway - since it hasn't been backed by gold in quite some time, the currency in circulation is just an arbitrary amount specified by a central body in a bid to balance inflation/interest rates. So what's the difference?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So give me all your money. Thanks."

If you would like to make a copy of my money, if you have access to the necessary information, then I don't mind. Of course the government probably does, but that's mostly if you try to pass it off as money that they printed when it's not. I'm against forgery and fraud. I'm not against copying. You are free to copy my car if you like if you already have the necessary info, I don't care.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"It shouldn't be illegal for me obtain something of yours without permission."

Now you're trying to disingenuously conflate taking something that belong to someone else, and depriving them of that which is taken, with making a copy of something. I'm against the former, I'm not against the later.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, really, this isn't the right law. You do NOT just introduce legislature for the sake of "trying to properly address illegal behavior". Every law you pass takes away a right and whether they end up being rights we don't have (nothing is free) you can not take away rights and censor people to try and stop the few who ruin it for everyone.

Re:

"One effect of this is making it harder to send copyright notifications, because you have so many URLs to report for a single infringement."

Nonsense. Assuming all the links point to the same server, removing the file associated with any one of those links will automatically disable all the other links. If the website is under US jurisdiction, this is exactly what they would do. If, on the other hand, the website is not under US jurisdiction then they don't have to respond to DMCA takedown requests in the first place and the point is therefore moot.

And a million dollars too!

If you don't put a lot of really ridiculous stuff in there then there isn't anything to pretend to "compromise" on and still get exactly what you want. It's a common negotiation tactic amongst politicians and allowance-seeking teenagers alike.

Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber

We build smart bombs that can seek out and destroy a target in a neighborhood but we create legislation that causes collateral damage to take out a small target. It seems our bombs are smarter than our government.

Re: Our bombs are smarter but our laws are dumber

Actually, we're still using Hellfire missiles to demolish an entire apartment building to take out a couple guys who are guilty of casually holding rifles, if you saw that video from WikiLeaks. So it looks like the government and bombs are both pretty dumb.

Looks Like It's Federal Prison For Me

I stream stuff from my home Debian server (via Subsonic) to various Android and other devices all the time! Just last week we wanted to watch an olde Mystery Science Theater 3000 and I just pointed my buddy's Wii to my home server and voila.

Now I'm a felon! At least I'll be able to catch up with the weed smoking friends I had in high school while we're all serving hard time. And somehow the Wall Street bankers and politicians who are fiddling while the Western economy burns are not being held accountable. And the Fox News and CNN twits can't figure out why my age group 18-30 is angry.

Re: Looks Like It's Federal Prison For Me

It's not just the 18-30 age group that is angry about this. My parent's generation fought and died to protect their children and future generations from fascism, unfortunately it seems they ended up fighting against the wrong enemy.

Re: Re: um

Re: Re: um

Only if they aren't performing something like a Man in the middle attack. I totally support this bill. When things become so oppressive that people are being beaten on the street for taking photos, people will be forced to realize they brought it on themselves.

Re: Re: Re: um

Re: Re: um

In reading the bill itself, I find that only the PROVIDERS of VPN services would be in trouble. Those who USE the services would not be breaking any laws. So those that have annual subscriptions can continue to use your current subscription until it runs out.

IN other circumvention is illegal for the PROVIDER, but NOT for the USER.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: um

and use OpenDNS or other, like I do already. I can VPN and look like I am in Amsterdam, and surf TPB, but I mainly use it to download from usenet anonymously. It's like I am taking a virtual vacation to England, France, or Amsterdam.

This Vermont voter is horrified by this legislation's constitutional infirmities, and is imploring you not to co-sponsor this legislation. And should it ever, in the face of reason (which is entirely possible, Congress no longer being a people's representative body), reach the House floor please sir vote against it.

Sen Leahy has chosen to work on behalf of Vermont's leading Hollywood movie studios in assaulting our constitution's First and Fourth Amendments with his Protect IP legislation.

This Vermonter is counting on you and Bernie to stand up against corporate purchased censorship.

Last time I wrote Chuck Grassley about this bill, I got a nice form letting telling me the needs of the entertainment industry is more important than the needs of the individual. The bottom of the letter had a message indicating I should donate to his reelection campaign so that my voice can be heard in Washington.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Pretending this bill is going to do anything but what it says it's going to do is pure FUD."

It's truth. We have adversarial hearings for good reason. Due process exists because without it, government tends to abuse its power more. Pretending otherwise goes against historical wisdom. This bill attempts to allow the government to do more without due process and the government has already been known to abuse its powers even without this bill.

The fact is that censorship is already a reality. Look at public airwaves and cableco infrastructure. The government wrongfully establishes monopoly power over these information distribution channels and, as a result, issues like the ridiculous nature of IP (ie: insanely long copy protection lengths) hardly ever get discussed over these communication channels. Instead, what ends up getting discussed is propaganda promoting such ridiculous laws. Criticisms would hardly ever be allowed and MM would never be allowed to use these communication channels to criticize our broken legal system. The government, and its laws, are responsible for this censorship because they have put up a gatekeeper cartel that wrongfully controls what information gets broadcasted. If anything, the government needs to fix our current IP laws instead of passing more restrictive laws. That it won't do that gives me no reason to trust it. Why should I? Just like with everything else, the purpose of this bill is simply to turn the Internet into what the government has turned everything outside of the Internet into, a highly censored communication medium where everything costs monopoly prices. Our government doesn't serve the public interest when it comes to many of the other laws it passes. Current IP laws aren't intended to serve the public interest (ie: Copy protection lengths). They are abusive. The government announces raids on websites from Disney. The government is passing these laws almost only because a few corporations want them. Why should we assume that these corporations are interested in the public good and not merely self interested? They are self interested and these laws are not intended to, and do not, serve the public interest. They are intended to serve the interests of those who are encouraging congress to pass them.

Why should I believe that this bill is any different and won't be abused by a government that intentionally passes abusive and oppressive laws with no intent on correcting them? Simply because they said so?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Piracy should be legal"

I disagree. It shouldn't be called Piracy. It should be called File Sharing, and yes it should be legal. Its a tool, nothing more. Will some people misuse a tool? Of course, but just because some do doesn't mean that it should be outlawed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you can't get pass the name of what it is being called you can't make right decisions ever.

So no, piracy should be called whatever you want but still should be legal no matter what others want to call it and the fact that a lot of people just don't care is just a good sign that people don't buy into the propaganda to the contrary that they are exposed to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

While you may understand the difference therein, others do not and take what you call it and that words definition as an answer for what it is. Calling it Piracy makes it sound like they are riding in with eye patches and swords. Looting the files and leaving a mess behind. Its what they want you to think it is so they can get these laws passed.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Pretending this bill is going to do anything but what it says it's going to do is pure FUD."

The mere fact that you've alluded to what it cannot do means one of two things:

1) You're a fucking liar

2) All possible interpretations have already been scrutinized and the inherent flexibility of the text thus ensures effective application on multiple facets of litigation benefiting your keepers directly.

Given the inherent short-sightedness of the industry that you represent I'm going with 1).

Re: Re:

No, it's because most people are intentionally kept ignorant by a government established mainstream media and they're too busy protesting for the sake of protesting (like the whole occupy wall street movement ... or did I just violate a trademark now).

Re: Re:

Occupy Wall Street needs to protest something specific, like these outrageous laws that the entertainment industry keeps on passing. What they're doing isn't really going to change much since no one knows what changes they want.

Re: Re: Re:

Occupy Wall Street needs to protest something specific, like these outrageous laws that the entertainment industry keeps on passing.

Then why don't you put on some patchouli oil and hit the streets with your "Down With PROTECT IP ACT" sign and catch a face full of mace for your trouble? Oh, that's right. It's easier to snivel here on Techdirt.

Re: Re: Re:

dead wrong. they need to remain broad. the second you narrow demands, or whatever the MSM keeps asking for, you narrow those interested in making a change. keep it broad, keep it indefinite, keep it of we the people.

Ive said it a million times it feels like. If you have to ask what occupy wants, when it is gonna be over, etc, you have no clue what is going on, and have no real desire for the status quo to change. You have been watching the news, not following the action on twitter or in person. You are a listener, not someone who forms their own ideas and takes action.

What are they protesting and why?

A)the answer could well be any of the hundreds, if not thousands of grievances people have against their government for choosing to no longer represent their interests.

B)This movement WILL change our world, and you will watch it happen with out you. It has already changed more than I could have imagined.

Re: Re:

Occupy wall street is a wishy-washy bunch of anti-corporate, anti-business, anti-everything noodnicks who can't even come up with a single point or cause to work from. These are the same sort of people that turn up at g20 meetings, break the windows out of the local McDonalds, and claim they have done something against the establishment.

More and more, they are looking like a homeless shelter for the hopelessly lost.

RE: OWS

I have to agree with the guy- OWS heart's in the right place and the problem they talk about are very real, but have you been by there lately? The drumming idiots that won't stop despite pleas from OWS "leadership", the extreme lack of focus, etc. are not helping to get the message out. They remind me of the G8 folks, w/o the violence. Sadly, yet realistically, things are going to have to get worse before the next tier of people, a step closer to the mainstream population, steps up to join them.

"A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site"

What if there are no technically feasible measures? How do you block a distributed website app for uTorrent? Are they going to block every single partial mirror of the Piratebay, or any other distributed torrent or DHT tracker?

robofog darknet

Open source/harware robot swarm auto mesh nework constructors in the future will create vast global spanning private intranets or darknets that will transcend and ignore gov laws and regulations. Crudely disguised censorship laws will only accelerate the inevitable creation of these future darknets.

Re: robofog darknet

Yes, robofog, many of us have read "Daemon" and "Freedom". It would be nice, but it's still fiction, and there is no Matthew Sobol. Unfortunately, there are many, many people that fit "The Major's" description.

Re: Re: robofog darknet

I have written to my reps more than once and i have wrote to the white house.I now have no intentions of voting for any democrats or republicans.I need to call the ACLU or my lawyer and think of how I can bring a lawsuit against this fukcen government.I am an Artist and give my Art away freely on filesharing sites.This law is such a piece of shit.It is not Constitutional in any way.
I AM PISSED !!!
Who gives these assholes the right to tell me and 1,000's of other musical acts where we can now share our music.
I am now ready for the revolution so when it happens I will be there with you.
I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT !!!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"This is a simple issue that you people are trying to FUD up with a bunch of nonsense. "

It is not a simple issue. You are attempting to oversimplify a rather complex issue.

To just as soon shit on any random artist in such a way belies your "for the artist" rhetoric.

Many of the outlets for this type of artist that does take advantage of "can do whatever they like" will all too easily fit neatly into the definition of a block list. It will only take one "nay".

By its very nature this proposed set of laws is, by definition, fear, uncertainty and doubt ( FUD ). Courtesy of people that are afraid.

Embrace your customers with better services, regardless of their location, for on this planet, even if you were not aware, communications are near-real time (Welcome). Reassess release windows, dare to become something other than the proven (time and time again) fuck-twats that you are.

Re: Re: Re:

Seriously, Mike, just admit what you really believe. Just admit that you are pro-piracy. Do you really think everyone else is so stupid that they don't know already? Stop lying to everyone. It's pathetic.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When you admit that you are a bumb that want others to pay you for life + 95 years is not reasonable and when you admit that exerting power over what people do after they bought it should be illegal because that is a true rip off.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I won't lie, I think YOU are stupid. Because despite quotes to the contrary, you still think Mike is pro-piracy. (And I should say, EXACT quotes saying "I do not support or condone piracy". Which really is all that needs to be said. Reasons and whatnot are irrelevant. He literally cannot make things any clearer than that. Yet here you are, like a broken record.)

"Stop lying to everyone. It's pathetic."

When you can present even one quote or proof of evidence that Mike is pro-piracy (and no, the site in general DOES NOT count, because you'll say this site is pure pro-piracy, I'm talking about something more exact and specific, like the quote I gave above) we'll believe what you say. Otherwise, you're just a liar and acting quite pathetic. Like a dog with a bone on this one thing. Get over it. You've been proven wrong, quotes and evidence have been given as testament of this, and yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

Mike, if you see this, please just state whether or not you are pro-piracy. Make it SO CLEAR YOU'D HAVE TO BE A GODDAMN IDIOT TO NOT GET THIS. That way this guy can just shut up already. It was annoying, it's gotten beyond dumb to see this dude pop up with the same (already proven wrong) thing again and again. One quote from you and hopefully that'll be the end of it (as doubtful as that is).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Masnick has been asked repeatedly to post receipts for his music and movie purchases, which he would keep for tax purposes.

He refuses to. So he's either unwilling to back up his difficult-to-believe claims or he's lying. Despite the fact that he runs a rather obviously pro-piracy blog while maintaining he never pirates anything.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

im pretty sure a dick is currently in your ass. Please send pictures of your ass timestamped next to todays newspaper with "i'm not quite as gay as you think i am" written on it in black sharpie. You either show the picture or obviously you spend all day with a dick in your ass.

Huh? How does that have anything to do with anything? If I can just use my phone wifi, which I pay for, I do that (as I'm doing this very second). If that option isn't there, then I'll pay for the hotel WiFi. What point do you falsely think you're making?

Re: Re:

You're "laughing your ass off" about a new censorship regime in your own country? Dude, you really need help.

Sites devoted to piracy will be taken off the web. Yeah, that's a "censorship regime." Not.

Your pro-piracy position couldn't be any more obvious. Why are you still lying to everyone, Mike? Why do you run away whenever I try to debate you? Why won't you ever let me nail you down on your position?

And when, oh when, will you explain all the reasons that "piracy is not OK"? It's hilarious how you won't answer that straightforward question with a straightforward answer. I've asked you several times, and never once have you just answered the question. You dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge, but you won't just answer the question. Classic!

I am LMAO at your squirming over these new laws. Watching you whine about this really makes my day.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, let's see. Mike is anti-copyright, anti-government, and anti-authority. He writes post after post talking about all the positive aspects of piracy. He is super-critical of any action taken against piracy. Yet, he denies that he's pro-piracy. It's obvious that he's not anti-piracy, so that only leaves the possibility that he's piracy-neutral. But given all the positive articles about piracy, and the negative articles about any action taken to stop piracy, he's obviously not neutral. It is abundantly obvious that Mike is pro-piracy.

Do I care that he believes this? No. I respect people's beliefs. What drives me nuts is that he lies about it. He intentionally lies about the FACT that he is pro-piracy. If he just admitted that he was pro-piracy, I'd respect him and leave him alone. But he will never admit it. He is too worried that his views will be marginalized even more than they already are. He cannot take that risk. So he continues with the lies.

I imagine he rationalizes it thus: "I hate copyright and I want it to be gone. It's not that I am pro-piracy, it's that I want copyright to disappear so that copying isn't actually piracy." Of course, that's a silly rationalization, and copyright does exist. The fact is, Mike won't explain why "piracy is not OK." Ask him. He will hem and haw and wiggle and squirm, but he will not, I repeat, he will not just answer the question.

Now why is this? Why won't Mike just tell us why "piracy is not OK"? I have a theory on that too. The only indications about why Mike thinks "piracy is not OK" is that: (1) it is technically illegal, and (2) some people who the victims of piracy do not like it. Now, Mike has made clear that (1) is dumb because he doesn't think it should be technically illegal, and (2) is dumb because people should recognize the positives of piracy. In other words, Mike just says those two things for show, and in his heart of hearts, he doesn't really think those things are bad.

And when Mike looks at the net, taking those two things he facetiously recognizes as negatives and adding all the things he sees as positives, it's clear that Mike thinks piracy is net-positive. Mike thinks piracy is net-positive, and therefore Mike thinks piracy is OK. This is my opinion, of course, and I guarantee that Mike will continue to pretend that he's not pro-piracy and that "piracy is not OK."

Anyone with a brain can see that Mike is lying. If he really thinks "piracy is not OK," then where are the articles about how piracy is not OK? They don't exist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So because he doesn't focus on "why piracy is not ok" he must be pro-piracy?

"Mike is anti-copyright, anti-government, and anti-authority"

Is he all of that? Or is he anti-copyright in that 95+ years is a ridiculous amount of time for copyright to be considered reasonable? Is he anti-government in that enacting laws that benefit only one group of people while leaving things open to potential abuse and at the expense of the rights of a major majority of others a dumb idea? Is he anti-authority in that the authorities are stepping in to help an industry that refuses to change even remotely kind of ridiculous?

Because I'm anti-all that too then. I can't speak to what Mike things, but I seem to think along the same lines. I'm not anti-copyright/anti-government/anti-authority. But I'm anti-stupid things. If you do something that doesn't actually solve a problem, but instead produces the opportunity for more harm to come than good, I'm going to be anti-that and call you out on your stupidity and question your motives.

I'm a realist, I'd say Mike is too. Piracy/file sharing isn't going to go away, ever. Regardless of what laws are passed to curb it. Perhaps then, instead of focusing on just piracy, focus on the people who want to pay. How can you get people to not pirate? Hmm. The answer to that, as has been stated over and over again, is give them what they want in a reasonable manner, in reasonable methods, and at a reasonable price. People will always choose the easiest, less of a hassle method to get what they want.

Look at the Ultraviolet article. The DRM is ruining the "digital copy". Making it not worth paying for or the hassle. In that case, which is the better option? You want a digital copy of a movie. You can pay for a "legit" copy that WON'T work. Or you can get a "non-legit" copy that will, for free. People want to pay, but you're not giving them a reason to when the methods you provide aren't working or have insane restrictions. You're f*cking them over and yourself in the process.

That's not me being pro-piracy is it? That's me pointing out the realities. The realities being, the customers want something and you're pretty much making it so the best alternative to them is the illegal one. (And don't give me the "then do without" bs. If I can get something, legally or illegally, I will. If I want something, and you're not at least meeting me halfway, and I can get that same thing illegally elsewhere in a superior/more convenient form, I more than likely will. Pure and simple. That's reality.)

This site is Mike's. He's free to write whatever he wants or post what he wants. Can you show me one article where Mike shows that piracy is ok? Just one. Not one where it's had a positive effect on sales or anything like that. No. Just one article, where he clearly states "piracy is ok". I'm saying that, because you're saying he isn't saying "piracy is not ok". So show me one where he says the opposite. If you can't find one, it must be because you're wrong. Right? That's the reasoning you're using at the moment. I don't see it, so thus this. So back at you.

Mike isn't lying about anything. That is purely YOUR opinion. Which you're entitled to. But don't present your opinion as fact, when citations have been given showing otherwise (that your opinion is in fact, incorrect and false). Mike DOES NOT support or condone piracy. Saying otherwise, is really, really, really, really pathetic. (Given evidence to the contrary.) End of story/comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I was going to respond to the silly comment accusing me of lying, but honestly, this comment above makes all the points I was going to make... and I'm exhausted from traveling all day while preparing for meetings tomorrow. So, yes, my answer is basically what was said in this comment that I'm replying to.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think you're too black and white with this breakdown. I read Mike's posts to indicate that he sees some amount of piracy as inevitable, and using over reaching laws to try and totally eliminate piracy is not only ineffective, but destructive. Now, I ask you a question. Do you personally think copyright laws are too invasive, just right or should be stretched further? If you're on board with stretching these laws further, can you explain why you feel the way you do?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think there is a slight difference here. Mike doesn't consider "some amount of piracy as inevitable", rather that piracy is significant enough that any business model based on selling what can be pirated is a failed business model.

Further, many of his business ideas (sell the scarce) are built on the idea of capitulating with piracy, giving into it as inevitable, and concentrating only on selling what cannot be easily pirated.

Some piracy is always inevitable. However, piracy at a level where it completely decimates business models just isn't tolerable. That is what laws like this end up being about, working to bring piracy down to levels that can be tolerated, and where most normal consumers have their needs and desires satisfied not by illegal actions, but by legal ones.

The problem for Mike, I think, is that this sort of thing brings us back to selling the content, and back to a relationship between content producers and content consumers that is more healthy for both sides. It would no longer be about scamming the mobs of people looking for the one idiot willing to over pay for some scarce commodity, and rather getting the majority of people to pay a little bit towards what they really wanted to start with: the content.

It isn't going to sit well with everyone, especially a younger generation that hasn't considered the concept of actually paying for content before. The slagging comments here about these laws only shows how upset they are to be losing their free lunch status.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've grown up as piracy has been an option. I have used Kazaa, Ares, IRC, and Azureus/Vuze for illegal purposes. I don't anymore.

I have found legitimate and convenient alternatives to the stuff that I want to get most: music. Amazon MP3 is making so much money on me per paycheck it's ridiculous. They give me no-DRM high-quality MP3s, a free cloud backup of all the music I buy (and anything I upload that I got from elsewhere [also legally]), and a really good selection.

I'm this younger generation you speak of. I don't pirate, at all. It's still an option for me, and I consider being legitimate and the "warm cushy feeling" of supporting the artist (I buy a good bit of indie) far more important.

And I find it a load of crap for you to say "back to a relationship between content producers and content consumers that is more healthy for both sides." The content producers have been upping the DRM ante on their LEGITIMATE and LEGAL customers who are PAYING MONEY for over a decade now. The pirates don't have to worry about such things, as has been hammered down time and time again. Why is a legitimate consumer of content treated like a criminal when the people actually breaking the law don't have to worry about it at all? That's Bass Ackwards logic at its finest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike has stated, repeatedly, in quotes I've shown to you, that he does not approve of, participate in, or condone piracy.

Here's a hint for you. Showing how content creators can turn "piracy" into self-interest is not being "pro-piracy." Objecting to the government's methods of fighting piracy is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out how the "solution" to piracy is worse than piracy itself, is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out that "pirates" are higher-paying customers is not being "pro-piracy." Pointing out how "anti-piracy" measures will hurt the economy, internet security, civil rights, and that they go against the will of the people, is not being "pro-piracy."

Or are you one of those morons who thinks that the ACLU is "pro-Nazi" because of the Skokie case?

On the other hand, you will never admit that copyright exists primarily to benefit the public, that the law says explicitly that copyright is not theft, or that its purpose is not to reward the labors of artists and publishers; so you are anti-copyright, anti-government, and anti-authority.

You are, in fact, a complete idiot.

Now why is this? Why won't you just tell us why "you're a fucking idiot"?

Anyone with a brain can see that you're a fucking idiot. If you really think "I'm not a fucking idiot," then where are the articles about how you're not a fucking idiot? They don't exist.

Do I care that you're a fucking idiot? No. I respect people's beliefs. What drives me nuts is that you lie about it. You intentionally lie about the FACT that you are a fucking idiot. If you just admitted that you're a fucking idiot, I'd respect you and leave you alone. But you will never admit it. You are too worried that your views will be marginalized even more than they already are. You cannot take that risk. So you continue with the lies.

Stop lying, anonymous person who is such a coward that he can't even register under a false name on a website. It's really, really, really, really pathetic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Karl, so how do you manage to align his words with his actions?

Mike has stated over and over again the piracy is inevitable, and that business models based on selling content are pretty much "buggy whip" businesses. It would seem at that point while he isn't directly supporting piracy, he is telling anyone who is touched by piracy to get use to it, and that it is unavoidable in his mind.

Mike has also made any number of posts here supporting piracy groups "rights". He has cheered on groups such as TPB as they try to give the stiff middle finger to content producers, and has posted sad little notices when they lose legal battles. Even when faced with the obvious (Ninja video), he seems to want the law to be changed to allow this sort of thing.

Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.

Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.

I could go on, but that is enough for you to chew on. No matter how many times Mike says "I don't support piracy", it is clear by his posts, his stands, and his comments that he certainly doesn't condone it either. Rather, he seeks to profit from it or it's existence. Do you honestly think his "sell the scarce" refrain would hold water if piracy wasn't rampant?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike has stated over and over again the piracy is inevitable, and that business models based on selling content are pretty much "buggy whip" businesses. It would seem at that point while he isn't directly supporting piracy, he is telling anyone who is touched by piracy to get use to it, and that it is unavoidable in his mind.

You're right... Since Hollywood knows what's best for the rest of the world, let's call it what it really is. McCarthyism on steroids. Works for me.

He has cheered on groups such as TPB as they try to give the stiff middle finger to content producers, and has posted sad little notices when they lose legal battles.

Because they have nothing but links on their server from user generated content, or do you not understand what a magnet link is? Wait, don't answer that, I already know...

Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.

[citation needed] - But since you're trolling, we both know that won't happen will it?

Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.

Excellent jump in logic. You should date Miko Miyazaki. You would do well until the inevitable showdown 10 minutes later. But I can't provide a link because it would be infringement. O NOES!

Do you honestly think his "sell the scarce" refrain would hold water if piracy wasn't rampant?

Ironic that you talk about water, when people still find a way to pay for bottled water. I guess those that collect rainwater are some kind of pirates for figuring out a way to buck the system. Those dang water collectors are killing the water industry!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Karl, so how do you manage to align his words with his actions?

What "actions?" He posts his oppinion, and talks about things with people. His only "actions" are not being a pirate (voluntarily - unlike 99.9% of the general population), and working to help artists make money.

I'd say his "actions" are pretty noble.

Mike has stated over and over again the piracy is inevitable, and that business models based on selling content are pretty much "buggy whip" businesses.

When "piracy" includes fans sharing music for non-commercial reasons, I'd say yeah, piracy is inevitable. And he does not say that "business models based on selling content" are "buggy whip" industries. He says that being a gatekeeper for content is a "buggy whip" business. On the other hand, Netflix "sells content," and they've done really well - and helped reduce piracy in the process.

Mike has also made any number of posts here supporting piracy groups "rights".

In exactly the same way as the ACLU supported the Nazi's "rights." He's wise enough to know that if they lose their rights, we lose those rights too.

Mike has also made it clear that while the internet "knows no borders", that he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws, rather than being responsible for what is on their sites, accessible from other countries.

Mike has said no such thing. What he has said is that the U.S. has no business holding foreign companies liable for U.S. laws, when they're not guilty in their own countries. As indeed he should. How would you like it if Iran or China enforced its laws in the U.S.?

Mike has also been in the forefront of the "a link isn't infringement" argument. That argument is that as long as you didn't actually commit the copyright violation yourself, you are fine to profit from it.

He thinks a link isn't infringement, because A LINK ISN'T INFRINGEMENT. Only a total and complete moron would think it is. My Facebook wall is full of friends who link to music videos on YouTube. Many of them are probably links to infringing content (though of course I can't know for sure). Do you honestly think they should be considered guilty of copyright infringement?

And, luckily, the courts agree with common sense. You may hate the fact that "a link isn't infringement," but that is the law. And why shouldn't companies who don't break any law earn a profit?

Especially if those links are put there by third parties who have nothing to do with those companies?

The idea that "linking is infringement" is one of the most idiotic, chowder-headed, and repressive ideas to come down the pike. It is an idea held by people who hate the very idea of the internet, don't like communication, and don't respect free speech.

I could go on, but that is enough for you to chew on.

I'm finding it very hard to swallow. Tastes a lot like straw to me.

Rather, he seeks to profit from it or it's [sic] existence.

And now it just tastes like bullshit. Mike has never, in any way, shape, or form, profited from piracy, or from its existence. And his "sell the scarce" stance is nothing new - in fact, it's the very reason copyright exists in the first place: to create artificial scarcity, so that it can be sold.

He's just smart enough to realize that when something is no longer scarce, it's time to move on to selling something that is. This makes him a far better businessman than the Big Media lapdogs that criticize him.

Perhaps that's why the artists he advises actually make money - and the artists they advise, don't.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

he supports groups which move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the safety of local laws

You know, I just realized how ironic this statement is, because that's exactly what the industries you support are doing.

Lose a court case against a video linking site located in Spain? Have ICE take them down from "the safety of local laws." Some kid is sharing music in England, without necessarily breaking English laws? Charge him with breaking U.S. laws, and have him extradicted. Have a useless patent? Sue in East Texas.

In fact, "forum shopping" is exactly what these bills hope to accomplish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And once again, the tl;dr version:

I don't like Mike or his opinion, so I'll misrepresent everything he stands for in order to further my agenda/my paymaster's agenda/my own stupidity int he hopes that it'll catch on.* This will use as many logical fallacies as is poosible in order to deflect from my own shortcimings/my master's short-sightedness/a refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace (c.f. banks)*

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why are you guys feeding the troll / shill? Characteristics: Not interested in the very real nuances of the debate, Ridicules and labels anyone that disagrees without addressing the poster's argument, consistently accuses others of personal attacks to distract and redirect. This is common here and on other popular forums when controversial issues involving corporate interests surface.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ask me a straightforward question, and I'll give you my straightforward answer. No need to pretend that I duck debates like Mike does. (Where is Mike, by the way? Funny how he lets everyone else do his arguing for him...)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Where is Mike, by the way?

I was on a plane to DC, so I can spend the next few days explaining to politicians why this bill is a huge problem.

I have no problem debating you and have wiped the floor clean with you multiple times in the past. That's usually when you start picking up on some tangent and stomping your feet like a little child. Please don't do that again. I've answered your questions multiple times.

You keep insisting I haven't, merely because you don't like my answer. Let me let you in on one of life's important lessons: just because you don't understand complex subjects when they're explained to you, it does not mean the person answering your question is avoiding the question. It just means that you don't like the answer. Acting childish in response is no way to go through life. So please don't do that again.

And, with that, I'm off to sleep, because I have a busy day tomorrow and Friday actually talking to people who matter.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Because it's a lying pussy bitch. Were it truly to believe its charges are not a direct affront to communication between individuals and parties of like-minded folks, a direct assault upon the recent flowering of voices, culture, dissent, change and progress it would have long ago resigned its self to the comforts of ignorance and not allowed its self to become a tool of industry. Merely a tool.

It can be considered entertainment to make it writhe and watch it careen about the stadium in mindless fury. All for free no less.

It is a mere distraction whilst the ongoing destruction of a free civilization is blocked in - brick by brick - yet again. Only this time the choices of the governed will be molded into an iron fist that will destroy the oppressors. To tempt the unknown is to fall victim to it. To attempt to change the known is to self-destruct.

Its obvious representation of the old-guard of culture is clear indication of the control this guard exerts across multiple facets of culture - they too shall fall.

Deep down it knows: We will not be controlled. We will not tolerate censorship under any guise. The revolution will be communicated. The revolution will be shared. "WE" will not stop.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've tried time and again to have nice debates with him. He ALWAYS runs away, pretends that he doesn't see posts, doesn't address issues if he does answer, etc. Mike's notorious for running away from debates.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right, but he doesn't think it should be illegal, and he thinks in the net it's more positive than negative. That means he pro-piracy. If that's what he believes, then good for him, but he should stop pretending that he's not pro-piracy. Techdirt is a notorious pro-piracy website. Mike is a notorious piracy apologist. He won't embrace it explicitly because he's worried it'll tarnish his reputation. In my mind, it's the lying that is tarnishing his reputation, not what he actually believes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Reducing IP length to something reasonable would likely substantially reduce infringement because people would better respect the law. Will it stop everyone? No, if it could we wouldn't have crime. But that's no excuse to have bad laws.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This comment is in accordance with most of the Techdirt crowd, and, if I understand correctly, with how Mike feels. Why are you so angry with someone you agree with?

There's no point in trying to eliminate all crime. The only way to do that is to eliminate all laws. A lot of people are stupid and greedy. A lot of people are also poor. Fining them more than they'll make in a lifetime/jailing them for downloading and listening to a song or downloading and watching a movie (or even being accused of either offense) is troubling. It causes a real disdain for the system, both the content providers and the government that protects them.

If there were a ~14 year limit on copyright, after which works entered the public domain, then perhaps it would be more reasonable to enforce high penalties for copyright infringement... because there would be a vast amount of these older, now freely available works for them, not just to view, but to expand upon, thus increasing the culture.

When you say "you guys would just "steal" the latest stuff"
it makes you sound petulant.

Look, casting blocking or even seizing domains that link to or host infringing material as "censorship" just isn't going to pan out, because it's NOT.

Nor is this new, as such: it's an extension of existing /copyright/ (madness). You may not like yet more extension of copyright -- and I've not changed on opposing it, either.

But the way to fight /power/ is to take away money, not redistribute, just zero it out, doesn't actually exist anyway. -- There's 600+ trillion of "debt" /on paper/, or roughly 40 years of all US income, being propped up yet again. Oddly, for an economist, that doesn't concern you. -- You're SO focused on this copyright bit, which you're nearly certain to lose on, that you're letting all the larger problems of society just go from worse to worse.

I hope that /now/ after yet another defeat, Mike (and anyone), when you see that your present efforts are having NO effect at all, that you'll begin to come round to Populism. We've got to work on root causes not minor symptoms: greed and power-madness. I think you're WAY too fond of corporatism and too Ivy League to even consider that your ivory-tower "economics" just don't exist in the world. And you may even believe that you'll soon "come into your own" among The RIch. But I'm still going to take your idealism that shows now and then as reason for hope...

"Think about this for a second: think how many bogus DMCA takedown notices are sent by copyright holders to take down content they don't like."

Think about this for a second: think how many infringing files are posted every day, think about how much counterfeit goods are made and sold, and think about the effects that has on the economy"

While I am not able to provide cause and effect, have you considered that the current worldwide economic crisis seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities?

Re:

While I am not able to provide cause and effect, have you considered that the current worldwide economic crisis seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities?

Really? The current economic crisis is caused by piracy? Are you that brain dead?

You really need to do some more research into what really caused the economic crisis. Hint: It's not piracy.

Re:

The only think that matches pretty close is the fact that apparently only the countries that have lots of piracy are the ones immune to the crisis all the other suckers just can't make it out, probably because a few stupid people got control of things through IP laws and keep screwing up royally.

Re:

While I am not able to provide cause and effect, have you considered that the current worldwide economic crisis seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities?

Hmmm!

Rubbish. The economic crisis is caused by the catastrophic resolution of structural economic difference between the developed world and the 3rd world.

The part of the economy that is (allegedly) affected by piracy is tiny and even if it were to disappear completely it would have no noticeable effect.

Re:

OMG! You can't compare the two. If one slightly questionable DMCA notice is filed, all of the creator haters here would be traumatized. But if a million infringing files are posted, the creator haters will just say that it's (1) something that happens and (2) the creators' fault for not adapting to the future;.

Re:

"While I am not able to provide cause and effect, have you considered that the current worldwide economic crisis seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities?"

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 26th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

Think about this: songs I created and recorded are owned by someone else. I essentially get no money for my work even though it sells. I hope all distribution companies get robbed blind and that every one involved in the industry becomes disfigured cripples.

infringement != counterfeiting, but you are drinking the **AA kool-aid, so we understand

You are seriously out of touch....

The current economic crisis 'seems to match up really well with an increase in piracy and other under the table online activities'..... Seriously?

How about...

The current economic crisis seems to match up really well with the recent increases in the governments disregard it's citizens civil rights in preference of corporations profits, and the excessive law suits and lobbying actions taken by the **AA's that have sucked BILLIONS of dollars out of the useful economy and dumped it into the lawyers and corporate coffers...

Actually, when it comes to VPNs. It would be illegal to provide them, but not illegal to USE them, under that section of the bill. So those of you that use VPNs are not breaking any law, but the PROVIDERS of VPN services, or other circumvention tools, could be hauled into court. The USERS or such services are not subject to prosecution under this bill. I would not be surprised if the bill was amended to prosecute users as well.

Just the worst

Maybe this isn't an age thing, but perusing this summary of the bill's intent and pervasiveness, it's hard to believe anyone under 35 had anything to do with crafting it (beyond mindless typing). There's clearly a misunderstanding about how commerce on the internet works. I don't think legislating online behavior is going to be very effective, and certainly not cost-effective.

Without Court Review? Nope!

Nothing in the US is beyond court review except, perhaps, impeachment cases. If the Senate convicts you, the Supreme Court won't get in the way. But you can sue for anything else you want and the court may or may not want to listen to you. But they'll decide whether you have a valid complaint.

Let's flip this around and look at it from the other direction. What if the copyright defenders started saying that "fair use" is bad because it allows people to infringe without court review. And they're right. You can post anything you want and take your chances that someone may sue you after the fact. But the court review isn't necessary before you actually post the material.

This is what is happening here. Mike and his looney friends would like you to believe that everyone should have a Lance Ito-grade trial before something bad happens to the infringers. But that's not what happens to murderers or all of the other criminals. Nope. The cops come and arrest people. Then they can rot in jail for months or occasionally as long as years before the courts get around to ruling. That's what happened to Tim McVey, Kevin Mitnick and hundreds of others.

I'm not saying this is fair, but the cops are usually free to step up and start the ball rolling without court review. Only a few things like search warrants require what looks like review prior to execution and even those have plenty of holes in them. The fourth amendment is like a moth-eaten quilt.

Is this good? I don't know. I just know that all of the other criminals get by without Lance Ito massages. Why can't the infringers?

Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

We don't have trials for murderers? All accused murderers are locked up in jail permanently as soon as they are accused by anyone? We don't offer murderers bail ever? We don't require probable cause of have grand juries to determine if an indictment will even go though? Could have fooled me.

Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Can't you read? Of course we have trials for murders but they come after the murderers are arrested and put in jail. There's plenty of room for court review here but it comes AFTER the domains are shut down. It's just like how we treat everyone from illegal parkers to murderers. Yet somehow Mike thinks there should be court review for infringers first.

Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

"Of course we have trials for murders but they come after the murderers are arrested and put in jail."

To the extent this happens it's to deter the alleged murder from running off to another country before being detained and tried. But that doesn't apply here, it's not like a building of hard drives is suddenly going to run away. Seizing a domain doesn't prevent a building from running away.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Yes, but it does stop some infringement. Oh perhaps the cockroaches will scurry into another crack, but it is a deterrent. You do think it's okay to deter infringement, right? Or are you one of those full bore creator haters who wants everything for free?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

You are the creator hater who doesn't care about creators who post their material on Youtube. You want them, and service providers (who will pass its costs back down to everyone else or who may go out of business or avoid starting various services) to bear all the burden of having to prove that they aren't infringing and to police content. That's bad for creators who want to post their work on the Internet. All you care about are the IP holders, not the creators, because what you want is bad for creators. It's bad for service providers which effectively makes it bad for the creators that want to use those services.

Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Someone is accused of murder. Following a police investigation the "murder" is arrested and held, after being formally charged. In a reasonable amount of time he is given an initial hearing at which he gets to plead and then bail and a trial date are set. The accused can then post bail or serve time until the trial. He is then tried. If guilty he is given a jail sentence.

You want to skip from accused to sentenced and leave out all the stuff in between.

Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Of course there will be proof. The cops won't shut things off without finding unlicensed stuff.

And there's plenty of ways that the system prevents abuse. Anyone who is hurt has the right to sue and those with a good story will sue. And they'll be able to collect damages too. The sleezy scumbags who just traffic in other people's hard work, though, will run back under the rock from whence they came.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Yet you seem to want the poor creators to put up the time, money and resources to police the infringement entirely on their own. So if it's good enough for the hard working artists why can't the low-life infringing cockroaches put up with the burden too?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

i will tell you that if i want to monitor my house because it me be robed I SHOULD PAY FOR AN ALARM SYSTEM the goberment wont pay for my alarm system so the same goes for teh artist and the mpaa and riaa

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

"Yet you seem to want the poor creators to put up the time, money and resources to police the infringement entirely on their own."

No one is forcing creators to police anything. They don't have to. They can either choose not to or they can choose to find another job if they don't want to create. IP holders are not entitled to the efforts and resources that others must contribute to police their privileges.

and you want everyone else to put up the resources to police other people's privileges. You want to force everyone else to take actions that are detrimental to their prosperity and economic efficiency for the sole benefit of someone else. Yet you want privilege holders to be as minimally inconvenienced as possible. Infringement fines are huge compared to the fines of falsely claiming infringement. Privilege holders don't even have to opt in to a centralized database of privileged content, everyone else is somehow magically expected to know what is and what isn't infringement, despite the fact that it is a much greater burden for others to determine if something is infringement than it is for the IP holder. IP holders have no obligation to publicly inform others of the copy protection status of 'their' content, everyone else is required to do the work of figuring that out.

Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

We only put people in jail when there is a belief that they might flee or interfere with the investigation and trial. In the vast majority of cases, you can post bail to get out of jail. Furthermore, someone who is in jail will rapidly get an adversarial hearing. When it comes to copyright infringement, taking away the domain name does not prevent reiteration of the crime, it does not prevent interference with the investigation and it does not guarantee the defendant will appear in court. It's it completely different.

Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

"We only put people in jail when there is a belief that they might flee or interfere with the investigation and trial."

and, usually, a court order is issued before they are detained before a trial. There are exceptions, like if someone commits a crime and is actively fleeing from an officer, then they maybe restrained upon being caught. But that doesn't apply here.

Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Yup, you'll have to prove your innocence, but that won't be any different from any crime from illegal parking to murder. The cops gather evidence and arrest you. Then you get to plea bargain or put up a fight.

If you think about it, having a "trial" before hand is just as much a pain. An accusation forces you to hire a lawyer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

and this is (or at least should be) a civil matter (well, it ought not be illegal, but that's besides the point), not a criminal matter. My next door neighbor can randomly sue me for my car, for no good reason whatsoever, just because he felt like it one day. My car doesn't get taken from me without court order though. Or if someone sues a corporation or individual for money, that money doesn't get taken from them without court order. You get to keep your money, that which may belong to you, until a judgement is held against you. Likewise, people should keep their website until a judgement is held against them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Sure they can arrest you. They arrest people all of the time. The trials always come afterwards and everyone arrested has to prove their innocence.

But for some reason Mike keeps waving around a flag saying that the domains will be shut down without a trial. Wrong. If people feel hurt, they can have a trial after the fact. It's just like any other crime.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Learn to read, dickhead. I said they can't just arrest you and leave it at that. The US Constitution gives people the right to a speedy trial. This means the government must either try you or let you go free. You don't have to prove that you are innocent, and you don't have to sue in order to do so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

Re: Without Court Review? Nope!

YES!! I have it. I can simplify all this court stuff for you, too complicated. Let's go back to the old times.

If you are accused, they'll take your servers and drop them in the deepest part of the ocean. If they float, obviously you were criminally infringing and should be locked up for life.
If theys sink you were innocent.

"Let's flip this around and look at it from the other direction. What if the copyright defenders started saying that 'fair use' is bad because it allows people to infringe without court review."

You don't know what you're talking about. Fair use is a defense against infringement claims, and you don't have to defend yourself if you haven't been accused of anything. The claim that fair use "allows people to infringe without court review" is therefore bogus.

In any case, you don't need new laws to arrest people for criminal copyright infringement. This law is not about that. This law is all about shutting down allegedly infringing websites not as a preliminary step to a trial but as the end in itself. That's what makes this law so dangerous.

Re:

Another problem would be that this would not work on some users in nothern parts of Montana, Idaho, and North Dakota. For users in those places, the only option is a wireless connection from over the border in Canada.

Canadian ISPs, even wireless ones that serve customers over the border in the USA, are not subject to United States laws. American law does not apply to Canadian ISPs.

Re: Who cares?

Under this law, the proivders of those networks will be felons, based on my reading this bill. Like I said, USING them will not be illegal, but PROVIDING them will be.

And making providing VPNs and other anoymizing services illegal will also affect even LEGAL strreaming services, as a lot of people use them from work to bypass the company firewall.

I know, becuase I run my own online radio station, and I do see a lot of traffic coming from servers in strange places around the world. When I see something from a IP address in, say, Iran, I know that it is someone using a proxy at work to bypass the company firewall.

Workplace listening makes up a lot of the audience of many online radio stations, including mine. If providing VPNs becomes illegal, and fewer people can tune in from work, this will be the death knell, even for legal stations.

Re: Re: Who cares?

Sadly for you, it will be the death knell...but only for the legal stations.
only legal consumers and creators are going to have issues with these laws.
For us, its just an inconvenience like always. But we're used to it.

Re: Re: Who cares?

Under this law, the proivders of those networks will be felons, based on my reading this bill.
Thes networks don't need providers - they are pure peer to peer. There is no-one to sue - other than the original provider of the s/w - and you can ask Phil Zimmerman how that type of scenario will pan out - because by the time you get around to suing the cat is already out of the bag.

At least the new acronym is more appropriate.

i wonder how long it's going to be before those here that keep advocating the need for this bill, how right it is and how it wont be abused, get hit themselves because a favorite web site has been blocked or they have had to remove a home video from youtube due to claims of infringement? how long before they start moaning about getting the very thing they want? how long before they start complaining about 'the internet is broken! how can it be fixed? how long will it take?' will they then have the guts to admit how wrong they were? of course not! once a blind, self-centered idiot, always a blind, self-centered idiot!

We won't permit this

So we...

castigate China for blocking sites, then we turn around and do the same thing?

We have become one of the most hypocritical nations on earth; we claim to be a democracy, yet we are more a plutocracy. Seats in Congress can be bought for the right amount, decisions in all the courts can be influenced by money in the right pockets, Cops take bribes right and left. State legislatures kiss the ass of any big corporation that gives them enough money.

We castigate other countries for civil rights violations then turn around and do the same thing. People disappear under the guise of "terrorists" and are never heard from again.

Man up

Let me try to be as clear and succinct as possible. Not exactly my style but - whatevs.

The desire for a law the likes of PROTECT-IP is going to help your lot is sheer, utter madness. You would have to be completely delirious to the fact that the technological ground shifts at the speed of sound and light, quite literally.

The means to communicate is undergoing tremendous transformations, as I type no less. You will attempt to outlaw the proliferation of files that correspond to and challenge your guarded interpretation of dissemination. You will attempt to utterly cripple sound, secure and dependable communications platforms. You will fail. Do you know why? You will fail because the digital format is ones and zeros. Why is that a failure? It is a failure because if one can formulate a digital message than, clearly, one can formulate a digital file.

The *only* and I do mean fucking *only* way you are going to ensure that you survive, your business, remaining in charge of your business, is to provide. Provide your product. Provide your product on *modern* terms. That's it. It's that simple. It. Is. That. Simple.

Communication on this planet is now. Not Fed-Ex, not UPS, not G.O.D. Now, as in "click Submit".

Re:

Good point. I've noticed how stories relating to copyright, the Internet, ProtectIP and other similar laws always seem to attract every single one of the shills like yourself to post here.
Oh dear, how revealing of your position. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned it, you know, for your own sake.

Just the facts

" everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts" and here they are:

Regardless of your opinion of them, the content industries produce something that is valuable and desirable to consumers. If this were not the case you wouldn't be so up in arms about the prospect of losing access to their content. content creators put in hard work and financial resources to develop this content under the premise that they will see a return on this investment. When they do, they have an incentive to produce more content and we all benefit as a result.

high-quality content is one of the primary drivers of the Internet. People dont pay the high cost of a broadband connection to watch dog on
skateboard videos.

All this bill says is that legitimate US companies that are part of the Internet ecosystem should have some obligation to stop organized criminal enterprises from exploiting the anonymous and borderless nature of the Internet to rob content creators of income they rightly deserve. It does not criminalize end users, it just attempts to make it more difficult for them to steal and encourages them to seek legitimate distribution platforms, of which there are currently numerous and that number is growing every day. Many of them in fact offer content for free. Sorry if you have to watch some ads.

If you believe that piracy should be legal then I can understand why you would object to this bill. But please be honest about it and stop trying to obfuscate your true motives by pretending that this is the first mile on the road toward US totalitarianism.

The Government Strikes Again

Tell them you are protecting them, tell them it's for their own good, TREAT THEM AS YOU TREAT CHILDREN and they will accept it lying down. This is not only a brutal wake up call, but a call to action for every United States Citizen to fight back for a change, and to stand up to have a voice. There will be those who FEAR what they say. There will be those who even BELIEVE their lies. We can't be held down from our rights! This is THE LAST TIME the United States will overstep their boundaries. This is THE LAST TIME I will accept their lies as truth. Not only are they taking our freedoms but they are controlling us. What are they protecting us from? They aren't protecting us from anything. They are protecting CORPORATE AMERICA. Fight back, use your voice, TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR COUNTRY!

My5cents

We live in a world with a production capacity roughly 1000's of times higher (per head) than lets say Ancient rome, yet the quality of life is only at best a few times better (one could argue that despite increased life expectancy and material wealth we're actually quite a bit more miserable).

The gap between the ultra wealthy and rest has actually nEVER been this high because of the previously mentioned discrepancy.

The one good thing the majority have going for them is socialization of digital information due to the decentralized and completely accidental creation of the internet. Take this away and all of sudden the social imbalance will be painfully obvious.

This isn't really a terrible thing, it may unleash powerful political forces which we are in desperate need of, and as someone previously said, we can take the net away from the fortune 200 companies (or is it 100, or 500, whatever) and create our own darknets (this is basically just setting up large lans within your community and later joining with others).

So i say, either way I'm happy, i either get to keep my free access to 21st century art or i get to live through a revolution.

(on a side note, have you noticed that when people make "art" for the sake of making lots and lots of money it tends to suck)

The bill too long. I didn't read it. So if this is spelled out in the bill then I apologize to those of you who took the time to read the bill. But...

How exactly do they think they are going to protect me from myself? If they have my ISP remove the offending website from their DNS server then I'll just use another DNS server in another country. If they have my ISP do some sort of packet inspection and then not forward along packets from the offening website then I simple use one of the many anonymizing service. I could even use TOR and select another country as my exit point.

Non-US payment procesing provider?

It seems to me that with proposals like that the right strategic decision for any non-US innovative business would be to not rely on any US-controlled payment processing provider. But Visa, MasterCard, PayPal... they are all US controlled. What else is there?

All these giant wasteful corporations need to do to save their business is start producing quality content. If movie studios continue to make remakes and sequels and churn out garbage, of course people would rather rip it from the internet. The music business has realized the money is in live shows and merchandise. Music has become a promotional tool to get people to go to the show, instead of the a main source of revenue. If the big film studios spend the money on nurturing writers and the storytelling process instead of on lobbyists, their problem would be solved. People still want to go to the theater and enjoy the experience of sharing art together. Adding more limitations and laws is NOT the answer.

This is sad...

I think blocking these things are not doing anyone good. Those who pirate will find ways around it while the rest of us suffer because we stream music off YouTube. Instead of trying to block everything what needs to be done is to educate people of morals, ethics, and common sense. To teach people why pirating is wrong and in the long term reduce the amount of piracy. To teach common sense, of basics of when something is just a corporate scheme manipulating the law, or when there is something truly wrong going on.

Setting all these rules and restrictions do no one any good, it prevents growth.

What a sad sad world this is, where the world runs on money, where we are blocking everything and anything we can to protect ourselves and our money.